The eight-episode series, narrated by Susan Sarandon and executive produced by Alex Gibney (“Taxi to the Dark Side”) and Robert Redford, debuted March 9. It was inspired, Gibney said during a Winter TV Tour interview, both by Thompson’s case and the work he’s done on behalf of fellow former inmates since his release.

Thompson runs the New Orleans-based Resurrection After Exoneration nonprofit. He also sued the Orleans Parish district attorney’s office for prosecutorial malfeasance, legal action that reached the U.S. Supreme Court, which in 2011 reversed lower-court rulings for Thompson in the case.

“You could make a whole film about what John’s done since his release, and it’s very, very unusual,” said Kenneth Levis, producer and director of the episode. “He’s a remarkable guy, considering all that he went through.

“This is a case where the prison experience really did transform him. He became a leader in prison -- on the block, as they say – where he took a lot of the inmates, especially the death row inmates, under his wing, and realized he could be helpful to these people.”

The series’ theme is unfair application of the law, not re-investigating each weekly subject’s actual guilt or innocence (though Levis said he came to believe that Thompson didn’t murder Liuzza).

“You really find yourself on one side at one moment, and on another side at another moment,” said Dave Snyder, supervising producer for the series. “We’ve definitely made a strong effort to be as objective as possible. It really shows you how murky it can get in some of the cases.

“Here you can have a room full of producers and associate producers and researchers, all of whom have been working on the same story, delving through legal documents for months on end. I’ll look around the room as an executive producer and ask, ‘Who thinks this person is guilty?’ Some people will say yes and some people will say no. You’ll say, ‘Wow, and that’s after putting this amount of effort into it.’ That’s how unclear this stuff can be. Which brings you to the idea of reasonable doubt and how important that concept is. These people are surely putting in – certainly in terms of hours spent -- a lot longer than juries, even. It gives you something to think about.”

“That was one of our objectives, to try to present all sides of the story and let the audience decide based on what we presented,” Levis added. “We withheld judgment, for the most part.”

At least when it came to the exonerated prisoners. The episode is quite clear in its judgments about the actions of the local district attorney’s office in this case. Connick, who left office in 2003, declined to be interviewed on camera for the series.

“We actually got Harry Connick to talk to us on several occasions, and he was actually very forthcoming over the phone, and very friendly, but absolutely refused to go on camera,” Levis said. “He certainly is a unique figure, and a fascinating figure. He was very, very protective of his office, and would do almost anything to keep the reputation of his office in a good light.

“He was also seen, I think, as very, very devoted and very hard-working. He had a huge caseload, and he got a lot of convictions. But he was so zealous in terms of his pursuit (of convictions), particularly in the death penalty, that I think ultimately – my own personal opinion is -- it reflects poorly on him.

“Like one of our interviewees says (of the Thompson case), ‘It wasn’t just prosecutorial overreach. It was either deliberate malfeasance or just incompetence and not really being in control of the case.’”